What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4895961?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4895961?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4895961?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4895961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10612703-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4895961?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4895961?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4895961?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4895961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10612703-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

189 Vaughans Road, Okura, RD 2, Auckland 0792 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4895961 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.
By declaration, the agreement between Ivan Christophe Karczewski and Caroline Ping Zhao in relation to the premises at 189 Vaughans Road, Okura, Auckland, is not a residential tenancy and is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application.
The Applicant will need to pursue the matter before the Disputes Tribunal should he wish to do so.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by remote teleconference.
A preliminary question arises in this case, namely, whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply, if there is no jurisdiction, then I cannot proceed to hear the case.
The tenant says that he responded to an advertisement on TradeMe for flatmates wanted. He says he needed a new place to live.
The premises consist of a large house – 6 bedrooms. The tenant says that he had use of all shared facilities.
The landlord was the head tenant. The head tenant had a tenancy agreement with the owner. The tenant paid his rent to the owner of the property. The tenant says that his rent included his room along with power and water. He and the other flatmates had full use of all facilities such as the kitchen, lounge and bathroom. The head tenant had other flatmates living there as well in the other rooms. The head tenant was responsible for the premises.
During the hearing the tenant confirmed and accepted that he was moving in as a flatmate at the start of the agreement. The landlord also confirmed that the advertisement was for a flatmate.
There appears to be no dispute therefore that this arrangement was a mutually agreed flatmate situation.
The tenant provided a House Sharing Agreement dated 20 July 2023 signed by both parties.
There are a number of previous cases that have come before the Tenancy Tribunal and the Courts where the question of whether an agreement is a flat sharing agreement or not has been considered.
The word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and a landlord. The word is no more than a convenient label reflecting a functional reality; and it remains necessary to ascertain the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of the evidence.
A useful analysis of the term “flatmates” is found in the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006- 032-36, 5 May 2006 where the landlord considered himself to be the “head tenant” and that he rented the other rooms to others whom he considered to be “flatmates”.
On the issue of whether the legal relationship between a head tenant and the other occupants were flatmates of the head tenant, Judge Broadmore stated (at [22]): “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
Some of the factors to take into account when determining the issue include: a. The person to whom the other tenants pay the rent, in this case, the landlord or the owner; b. The understanding that exists between the parties; c. When each tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority
I find that the evidence establishes clearly that this was a shared flatting situation. The relationship between the applicant and Ms Zhao was not that of landlord and tenant, rather flatmates. The parties have each had occupation of their own bedrooms of a house, sharing facilities in the usual way of flatmates.
The arrangement was for the parties to live co-operatively as flatmates, with the respondent being liable to pay the owner, and the parties sharing common living areas. I am satisfied that the living arrangement was a flatting type agreement and excluded from the terms of the RTA.
The appropriate course would be for the applicant to re-commence his claim in the Disputes Tribunal, should he wish to continue with this.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.

Order

The application is dismissed.
By declaration, the agreement between Ivan Christophe Karczewski and Caroline Ping Zhao in relation to the premises at 189 Vaughans Road, Okura, Auckland, is not a residential tenancy and is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application.
The Applicant will need to pursue the matter before the Disputes Tribunal should he wish to do so.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by remote teleconference.
A preliminary question arises in this case, namely, whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply, if there is no jurisdiction, then I cannot proceed to hear the case.
The tenant says that he responded to an advertisement on TradeMe for flatmates wanted. He says he needed a new place to live.
The premises consist of a large house – 6 bedrooms. The tenant says that he had use of all shared facilities.
The landlord was the head tenant. The head tenant had a tenancy agreement with the owner. The tenant paid his rent to the owner of the property. The tenant says that his rent included his room along with power and water. He and the other flatmates had full use of all facilities such as the kitchen, lounge and bathroom. The head tenant had other flatmates living there as well in the other rooms. The head tenant was responsible for the premises.
During the hearing the tenant confirmed and accepted that he was moving in as a flatmate at the start of the agreement. The landlord also confirmed that the advertisement was for a flatmate.
There appears to be no dispute therefore that this arrangement was a mutually agreed flatmate situation.
The tenant provided a House Sharing Agreement dated 20 July 2023 signed by both parties.
There are a number of previous cases that have come before the Tenancy Tribunal and the Courts where the question of whether an agreement is a flat sharing agreement or not has been considered.
The word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and a landlord. The word is no more than a convenient label reflecting a functional reality; and it remains necessary to ascertain the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of the evidence.
A useful analysis of the term “flatmates” is found in the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006- 032-36, 5 May 2006 where the landlord considered himself to be the “head tenant” and that he rented the other rooms to others whom he considered to be “flatmates”.
On the issue of whether the legal relationship between a head tenant and the other occupants were flatmates of the head tenant, Judge Broadmore stated (at [22]): “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
Some of the factors to take into account when determining the issue include: a. The person to whom the other tenants pay the rent, in this case, the landlord or the owner; b. The understanding that exists between the parties; c. When each tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority
I find that the evidence establishes clearly that this was a shared flatting situation. The relationship between the applicant and Ms Zhao was not that of landlord and tenant, rather flatmates. The parties have each had occupation of their own bedrooms of a house, sharing facilities in the usual way of flatmates.
The arrangement was for the parties to live co-operatively as flatmates, with the respondent being liable to pay the owner, and the parties sharing common living areas. I am satisfied that the living arrangement was a flatting type agreement and excluded from the terms of the RTA.
The appropriate course would be for the applicant to re-commence his claim in the Disputes Tribunal, should he wish to continue with this.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4895961 — Tenancy dispute at 189 Vaughans Road, Okura, RD 2, Auckland 0792

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4895961 — Tenancy dispute at 189 Vaughans Road, Okura, RD 2, Auckland 0792

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions